Darwinists have got circular argumentation down to a science?

Evolution’s Circular Web of Self-Referencing Literature 

Cornelius Hunter 

Evolutionists believe evolution is true. As justification, they cite previous studies. But those previous studies were done by other evolutionists who, yes, believe evolution is true. The studies do not confirm evolution — they interpret the evidence according to evolutionary theory, no matter how much the evidence contradicts the theory. So, citing those previous studies does little to justify the belief in evolution.

It is a circular web of self-referencing literature. The blind lead the blind. Here is an example. For years Joe Thornton has been claiming proteins evolved. See, for instance, “Simple mechanisms for the evolution of protein complexity,” from Protein Science

As his starting point in the paper, Thornton cites several previous works, falsely claiming that they demonstrate evolution. One of his citations is a paper, “Protein folds, functions and evolution,” from 1999 when I was working on my doctorate in this are

This 1999 paper is cited to support the claim in the Thornton paper that “During the last ~3.8 billion years, evolution has generated proteins with thousands of different folds.” But the 1999 study demonstrates no such thing — not even close. Not controversial, no debate. This is simply a false citation. It is another example of the web of false, self-referencing literature.  

Another Citation 

Here is another citation in the Thornton paper: “Eye evolution and its functional basis,” by Dan Nilsson from 2013, in the journal Visual Neuroscience. This 2013 paper is cited to support the claim in the Thornton paper that the evolution of the vertebrate eye has been proven. But the 2013 Nilsson paper proves no such thing. Again, Nilsson takes evolution as his starting point. He presupposes evolution is true and works from there. Nowhere does Nilsson demonstrate that the evolution of the eye is likely or even could have occurred.

Nilsson has been doing this for years, going back to his 1994 paper, “A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve,” in Proceedings of the Royal Society B

Not Whether, but How Fast 

That 1994 paper explicitly stated (in the first paragraph) that the question is no longer whether the eye evolved, but how fast it evolved. Nonetheless, the paper was heavily promoted (and mischaracterized) by evolution promoter Richard Dawkins. For years after that, the paper was falsely cited as proof that the eye evolved, no question about it. If you like videos, Nilsson reviews his work in this 2019 presentation: 

Nilsson does very little original biology work. Instead, he offers evolutionary just-so stories. His work is something of a poster child for this false citation pseudoscience problem. The new Thornton paper is yet another example of how pervasive the problem is, and how vacuous is evolutionary science.

The formula goes like this: 1. Evolution is true. 2. Here’s how it must have happened. 3. Look, yet more proof of evolution.

This post is adapted from Dr. Hunter’s comments on Twitter.

 

 

The design filter can spot a dirty game?

Did Chess Ace Hans Niemann Cheat? A Design Detection Poser 

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC 

On a new episode of ID the Future, mathematician William Dembski and host Eric Anderson explore whether design detection tools shed any light on the recent chess scandal involving world chess champion Magnus Carlsen and American grandmaster Hans Moke Niemann. Did Niemann cheat in a match where he beat Carlson, as some have claimed? There is no smoking gun in the case, so how might one determine if cheating occurred? At first glance the problem might seem far removed from the design detecting rules and tools Dembski laid out in his Cambridge University Press monograph The Design Inference. But actually there is some intriguing overlap. Is there a way to dig into the chess data and determine whether Niemann secretly used a computer chess engine to help him win the match? Tune in as Dembski and Anderson wrestle with the problem. Download the podcast or listen to it here. 

 

1914 : a marked year. II

Legacy of World War I  

BY HISTORY.COM EDITORS 

World War I Begins 

Convinced that Austria-Hungary was readying for war, the Serbian government ordered the Serbian army to mobilize and appealed to Russia for assistance. On July 28, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, and the tenuous peace between Europe’s great powers quickly collapsed.

Within a week, Russia, Belgium, France, Great Britain and Serbia had lined up against Austria-Hungary and Germany, and World War I had begun. 

Legacy of World War I 

World War I brought about massive social upheaval, as millions of women entered the workforce to replace men who went to war and those who never came back. The first global war also helped to spread one of the world’s deadliest global pandemics, the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918, which killed an estimated 20 to 50 million people.

World War I has also been referred to as “the first modern war.” Many of the technologies now associated with military conflict—machine guns, tanks, aerial combat and radio communications—were introduced on a massive scale during World War I.

The severe effects that chemical weapons such as mustard gas and phosgene had on soldiers and civilians during World War I galvanized public and military attitudes against their continued use. The Geneva Convention agreements, signed in 1925, restricted the use of chemical and biological agents in warfare and remains in effect today.